SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT DIRK GKEINEDER - Mass Cases
errors, the outcome would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Under Article XII: Our test is whether defense counsel's amission "likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, subatantial ground of defense" [citinq Saferianl or whether "better work might have accomplished something material €or the defense," [citinq Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 1 09, 115 (1977)l. Commonwealth v, Curtis, 417 Mass. 19, 625 n.4 (1994). In adjudicating an ineffective assistance claim, a reviewing court will give broad deference to strategic decisions made by trial counsel. Such a decision amounts to constitutional error only if it was manifestly unreasonable when made. Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435, 442 (2006). The failure of trial counsel to file a pretrial. motion may constitute ineffective assistance. See, e.q., Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385-386 (1986) (motion to suppress); Commonwealth v. Beliard, 443 Mass. 79, 90-91 (2004) (motion to exclude scientific evidence). Defense counsel has a duty to seek to exclude inadmissible evidence which is harmful to the defendant'a case. E.q. Commonwealth v. Peters, 429 Mass. 22, 31-33 (1999). In order to make out a claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to file a motion, the defendant has to show that the motion properly would have been allowed. Beliard, 443 Mass. at 91. 46
In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance in a capital case, this Court considers whether defense counsel erred and, if so, whether it likely influenced the jury's conclusion. Commonwealth v. Gomez, 450 Mass. 704, 712 (2008). Where such a claim is considered along with the defendant's direct appeal, the Court reviews the claim under the substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice standard enonciated in M.G.L.c. 278, 533E. a standard more favorable to the defendant than the constitutional one. Gomez, 450 Mass. at 711. C. Application of Law to Facts, 1. Defense counsel blundered in failing to move to exclude the Commonwealth's scientifically Unreliable DNA results. Cellmark's DNA test results, purporting to link Gseineder to the knife and brown work gloves used by Ms. Greineder's killer, provided powerful support for his conviction. Faced with auch obviously damaging evidence, it was incumbent upon defense counsel to see to exclude it at trial, if possible. Counsel had several compelling arguments available to keep Cellmark's test results out. His experts had told him that Cellmark's work in this case waa grossly deficient in numerous respects and stretched the technology beyond the point of scientific reliability. He knew that Cellmark had failed to validate allelic calls below 100 RFUs, that necessary controls 47
- Page 11 and 12: Commonwealth v. Carter, 39 Mass. Ap
- Page 13 and 14: Commonwealth v. Martinez, 425 Mass.
- Page 15 and 16: FitzDatrick v. Allen, 410 Mass. 791
- Page 17 and 18: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dirk K. Grein
- Page 19 and 20: First of all, we are in Room 8. The
- Page 21 and 22: logistical reasons for closure.3 As
- Page 23 and 24: inculpatory DNA test results linkin
- Page 25 and 26: testified that Greineder could not
- Page 27 and 28: This Court held in Bmmonwealth v. N
- Page 29 and 30: of his Miranda rights. a. at 112-12
- Page 31 and 32: up Ms. Greineder . Greineder replie
- Page 33 and 34: waives that right and makes volunta
- Page 35 and 36: that Greineder had never mentioned
- Page 37 and 38: they render the trial fundamentally
- Page 39 and 40: Prior to trial, the Commonwealth ma
- Page 41 and 42: gets to that point [i.e., to commit
- Page 43 and 44: States, 17 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir.
- Page 45 and 46: 399 Mass. 17, 21 n.5 (1987). In Gal
- Page 47 and 48: 1. Rebeiro's trial testimony was fa
- Page 49 and 50: As noted above, many jurisdictions
- Page 51 and 52: deliberations. Judge Chernoff is co
- Page 53 and 54: where the jury had experimented wit
- Page 55 and 56: jury, if “a judge learns that a j
- Page 57 and 58: consideration of the factors outlin
- Page 59 and 60: moments" of insight, which "helped"
- Page 61: Commonwealth v. Curnin, 409 Mass. 2
- Page 65 and 66: DNA test results withstands scrutin
- Page 67 and 68: In any event, if filing such a moti
- Page 69 and 70: subject to exclusion on that ground
- Page 71 and 72: esults were effectively unchallenge
- Page 73 and 74: emains unrebutted, and Dr. Brenner'
- Page 75 and 76: precisely what the Constitution pro
- Page 77 and 78: A search warrant for a residence co
- Page 79 and 80: circumatances, the court could prop
- Page 81: process can arise from a combinatio
In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance in<br />
a capital case, this Court considers whether defense<br />
counsel erred and, if so, whether it likely influenced<br />
the jury's conclusion. Commonwealth v. Gomez, 450 <strong>Mass</strong>.<br />
704, 712 (2008). Where such a claim is considered along<br />
with the defendant's direct appeal, the Court reviews the<br />
claim under the substantial likelihood of a miscarriage<br />
of justice standard enonciated in M.G.L.c. 278, 533E. a<br />
standard more favorable to the defendant than the<br />
constitutional one. Gomez, 450 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 711.<br />
C. Application of Law to Facts,<br />
1. Defense counsel blundered in failing to<br />
move to exclude the Commonwealth's<br />
scientifically Unreliable DNA results.<br />
Cellmark's DNA test results, purporting to link<br />
Gseineder to the knife and brown work gloves used by Ms.<br />
Greineder's killer, provided powerful support for his<br />
conviction. Faced with auch obviously damaging evidence,<br />
it was incumbent upon defense counsel to see to exclude<br />
it at trial, if possible. Counsel had several compelling<br />
arguments available to keep Cellmark's test results out.<br />
His experts had told him that Cellmark's work in this<br />
case waa grossly deficient in numerous respects and<br />
stretched the technology beyond the point of scientific<br />
reliability. He knew that Cellmark had failed to validate<br />
allelic calls below 100 RFUs, that necessary controls<br />
47
Change language